5.  The applicants are:
 
30089/04 Mr Ciaron Goggins, a British national who was born in 1961 and lives in Ballyjamesduff, Ireland.
 
14449/06 Mr John Day, a British national who was born in 1964 and lives in Witham.
 
24968/07 Mr Michael Jackson, a British national who was born in 1953 and lives in Leeds. He is represented before the Court by Tyndallwoods, a firm of solicitors based in Birmingham.
 
13870/08 Mr Christopher Scott, a British national who was born in 1952 and lives in Horsham.
 
36363/08 Mr Guled Michael, a British and Somali national who was born in 1977 and lives in London.
 
23499/09 Ms Carol Castley-Turner, a British national who was born in 1950 and lives in Radcliffe.
 
43852/09 Mr Darren Coates, a British national who was born in 1971 and lives in Mansfield.
 
64027/09 Mr Jonathan Bennetts, a British national who was born in 1971 and lives in Penzance.
6.  The applicant was arrested on 13 May 2004 after an allegation of rape was made against him. At the police station, his fingerprints and photographs were taken and he provided a DNA sample.
7.  On 19 July 2004 he was advised that the charges against him had been dropped.
8.  To date, his DNA, photographs and fingerprints have not been destroyed.
9.  The applicant was arrested in 2005. At the time of his arrest, fingerprints and photographs were taken. He also provided a DNA sample. No further inquiries were made and the applicant was not convicted of any offence.
10.  On 10 April 2006, Essex Police confirmed that the applicant’s case was not considered to be exceptional and that his fingerprints and DNA would be retained.
11.  It appears that Mr Day’s DNA sample was subsequently found to have insufficient DNA material and there are accordingly no data relating to him in the DNA database.
12.  On 15 November 2004 the applicant was charged with a harassment offence following a dispute with his neighbours. He was required to provide samples of his DNA and fingerprints. It appears that photographs were also taken.
13.  On 28 July 2005 he was acquitted in the Magistrates’ Court. Following his acquittal, he requested the destruction of his DNA and fingerprint data.
14.  By letter dated 28 March 2006 West Mercia Police refused his request on the basis that his case did not disclose any exceptional circumstances. This decision was confirmed on 27 July 2006 and 2 October 2006. The applicant subsequently sought to establish “exceptional circumstances”. His request for destruction of the data was definitively rejected on 6 February 2007.
15.  To date, his DNA, fingerprints and photographs have not been destroyed.
16.  On 7 August 2006 the applicant voluntarily attended Crawley police station where he was arrested. The allegations against him were that he was guilty of harassment in respect of his conduct towards Mrs K.O., who had made a complaint to the police. His fingerprints and photographs were taken and he provided a DNA sample. He was not charged with any offence.
17.  Following a request that his data be destroyed, he was advised by Sussex Police on 29 November 2006 that his DNA and fingerprint records would be retained.
18.  The applicant subsequently complained about his arrest. On 22 March 2007, he was advised that an investigation had been carried out and that there was insufficient evidence to justify misconduct proceedings against any officer. He was advised by letter of 16 May 2007 that his appeal against that decision had been refused by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“IPCC”).
19.  To date, his DNA, photographs and fingerprints have not been destroyed.
20.  On 21 January 2005 the applicant was travelling by bus when he was asked to produce his ticket by a ticket inspector. The applicant produced a child bus ticket. The inspector asked for the applicant’s name and address, which the applicant refused to provide, offering instead to pay the relevant fine. The ticket inspector insisted that the applicant provide his name and address, whereupon the applicant wrote down a false name and his former address. At that stage, a police officer became involved and it emerged that the details provided by the applicant were false. He quickly provided the correct details, producing a formal letter to confirm his identity and address. The applicant was then arrested and taken to the police station, where a DNA sample and fingerprints were taken. He was not charged in connection with the incident.
21.  In October 2006 the applicant requested the police to destroy his Police National Computer (“PNC”) record including his DNA data and fingerprints. On 22 August 2007 the applicant was advised that his data would not be destroyed as his case was not exceptional.
22.  On 5 November 2007 the applicant lodged an application for judicial review arguing that his arrest was unlawful as it did not comply with the relevant legislation and he was not advised of the reasons for his arrest. He further argued that the decision to retain his data was unlawful.
23.  On 28 January 2008, his application for judicial review was refused on the papers on the ground that it was misconceived and had been lodged out of time. The judge noted that the possibility of a civil action in the County Court was open to the applicant, although he observed that on the basis of the papers before him, such action seemed likely to fail.
24.  At a renewed permission hearing on 15 April 2008 the court found that the application had been lodged in time but refused permission to seek judicial review. The court found that the applicant had been lawfully arrested on suspicion of deception or attempted deception. It referred to contemporaneous notes of the attending police officer which stated that the applicant had been advised that he was being arrested on suspicion of deception. The arrest having been lawful, it followed that the retention of the applicant’s data was also lawful.
25.  To date, his PNC record, DNA data and fingerprints have not been destroyed.
26.  It is not clear exactly when or why the applicant’s fingerprints, DNA and photographs were taken by the police authorities. Documents submitted by the applicant appear to indicate that she was arrested on 2 August 2008 on suspicion of battery, following which no further action was taken. The documents also confirm that her fingerprints and photographs were taken on 21 November 2008 in connection with a suspected theft offence.
27.  On 22 March 2009 the applicant wrote to Greater Manchester Police requesting that her DNA data, fingerprints and photographs be destroyed. By letter dated 14 April 2009 she was advised that her data had been lawfully collected following her arrest in August 2008 for offences against the person. They would therefore be retained.
28.  The applicant subsequently wrote to the IPCC regarding the retention of her data and raising general complaints about the police. On 22 April 2009 she was advised that her complaints regarding data retention were outside the IPCC’s remit and that her general complaints appeared to be the same as complaints previously considered and dismissed by the IPCC in 2008.
29.  To date, her DNA, photographs and fingerprints have not been destroyed.
30.  Following a parking incident on 20 October 2007 the applicant was arrested under caution on 12 November 2007 after attending the police station voluntarily. Fingerprints and a DNA sample were taken. On 24 December 2007, he was advised by the Crown Prosecution Service that he would not be charged with any offence.
31.  On 20 January 2009 Nottinghamshire Police advised that the applicant’s DNA would be retained. This was confirmed on 18 May 2009. On 11 June 2009, the applicant was definitively informed that his DNA would not be destroyed.
32.  To date, his DNA and fingerprints have not been destroyed.
33.  Documents submitted by the applicant appear to show that a DNA sample was taken from him on 8 February 2006 following his arrest in connection with alleged public order and other miscellaneous offences. He was subsequently arrested on 8 December 2006 for suspected harassment offences. No further action was taken on either occasion.
34.  Subsequently, in unrelated proceedings, on 23 July 2008 the applicant was served with an application in the County Court for a possession order against him. He did not reply but attended court on the date indicated. At the hearing, he was told to put his defence in writing, and the case was adjourned to 6 November 2008.
35.  The applicant lodged a written defence as requested. On 6 November 2008 the applicant did not attend court due to prior work commitments. A possession order was made against him. On 4 December 2008 execution of the possession order was stayed until the judge’s reasons for making the order were delivered.
36.  Subsequent events are unclear. It would seem that the applicant sought leave to appeal and that leave was granted on 27 January 2009. On 23 March 2009, it appears that the appeal was dismissed. The applicant alleges that he only received a copy of the transcript of the judgment in November 2009.
37.  On 22 April 2009 the applicant alleges that the County Court made an eviction order. The applicant was apparently evicted on 13 May 2009.
38.  By letter dated 8 June 2009, the court service advised the applicant that his application for permission to appeal and a stay of execution had not been considered by a judge because the applicant had provided insufficient papers. The letter noted the applicant’s wish to proceed with his application and requested details as to how the change in circumstances, i.e. the repossession of the applicant’s house, did not render his application academic. There is no evidence of any reply by the applicant.
39.  In September 2009 the applicant alleges that he applied for an injunction to prevent the demolition of his former home. Documents submitted by him show that a claim was issued against an unspecified defendant on 29 September 2009. No further details have been provided.
40.  On an unspecified date, and following suspected arson at the applicant’s business premises, the applicant appears to have been arrested. It would seem he was subsequently arrested a second time following allegations of harassment made by his landlord. No further arrests were made nor were any charges brought in respect of the alleged arson and false allegations.
41.  On 9 October 2009 the applicant was informed that his police record for the offence of harassment following his arrest in 2006 would be retained.
42.  To date, his DNA data have not been destroyed.